> -----Original Message-----
>> >ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address
> >Blocks
> >
> >Proposal Originator: Benson Schliesser
> >
> >Proposal Version: 1
> >
> >Date: 13 February 2011
> >
> >Proposal type: New
>> I don't remember when, but my opposition to this the last time (I
> remember) this idea came around went something like this:
>> 1. My membership in ARIN is funding my ability to find out who is
> sending me packets. (Assuming no forging of the header.)
>> 2. My membership in ARIN is ensuring my number resources are uniquely
> assigned to me.
>> 3. Having to register my contact information is not a privilege or a
> right but a requirement and a responsibility.
>> 4. I consider it ARIN's responsibility to keep track of "who" is
> assigned "what" resources (even if that means federating responsibility
> to other RIRs and NIRs).
>> Removing information about legitimate resource holders that are not
> paying ARIN (whether legitimately not paying or just behind on their
> bills) is detrimental to those that are paying.
[Milton L Mueller]
This is an example of what I mean when I say the proposal is ahead of itself a bit, even though a very good initiative. Many people, such as Mr. Lewis of Neustar who commented above, may not fully understand why this is being proposed. The point is not to lose information about who is sending him packets, it is to make it possible for multiple entities to offer some of the services ARIN now offers, while retaining a consistent, integrated Whois. If the idea behind this proposal is fully realized, it would probably greatly enhance functions 1 and 4 without detracting at all from function 3 in his list above. That is why the proposal talks about placeholder entries that refer to other registrars. If we can "federate" that process among regional IRs I don't see why we can't further federate it to multiple registrars in the same region.
When Mr. Lewis says that "My membership in ARIN is funding my ability to find out who is sending me packets" he may be overlooking the fact that his membership is also funding that ability for all kinds of other people as well, many of whom are free riders and/or have no contract with ARIN. As the proposal notes, this creates an ambiguous and unstable relationship between address allocation governance and the legacy holders, who account for nearly 40% of the ipv4 address space. I don't see any way to clean up that mess without doing something along the lines of what 133 proposes.
> If the effort is to entice legacy space holders into joining ARIN, don't
> try to penalize them. Give them a positive incentive.
I don't see this proposal as involving any penalties. Indeed, it is the absence of this kind of thinking that consistently leads to proposals to force legacy holders into the ARIN regime. The (implied) incentive in 133 is that legacy holders can go to other service providers - assuming of course, that we retain a consistent and integrated whois that works across multiple service providers.
>> At 13:17 -0600 2/14/11, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> >Having said that, I can understand that some legacy address holders
> >will want to continue receiving services from ARIN, including Whois and
> >in-addr DNS. The LRSA is one way to facilitate that without an
> >ambiguous relationship. We may also want to propose an alternative
> >mechanism, assuming that the LRSA is unappealing, but I have not
> >included that in prop 133 at this time.
>> The faulty logic here is in identifying who is "receiving services from
> ARIN." The relying parties that hit the whois and DNS servers are not
> only the holders of number resource but anyone that sends a packet in
> the Internet. The vast majority of these people do not have any number
> resources registered to them.
>> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> =-=-
> Edward Lewis
> NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-
> 5468
>> Me to infant son: "Waah! Waah! Is that all you can say? Waah?"
> Son: "Waah!"
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.